Truly a bizzare argument that only gets harder to understand every time I hear it. Whether the day, month or year is most important changes per every case.

Are you telling me if you had file cabinets for the last 50 years, and you had to get a specific file Nov 1992, you would rather sort first and get all the files marked "November", and then sort through those 50 to get to the 1992 November? Surely one would reduce down to the year - 1992 - first, and then to the month.

Same for alphabetical ordering, a data list ordered by logname-MMDDYYYY.log alphabetically wouldnt be chronological order - YYYYMMDD or DDMMYYYY would.

Month is primary in some cases sure, but I think year and day endian are primary in many others - plus have the above sorting and ordering benefits.

> What I like about it is that it arranges things in order of importance/relevance in most situations. The month tells me the most important bucket, [...]

In my experience, the thing which is the most important/relevant in most situations is the day of month. People often say things like "dia 10" when asked when something is going to happen; that means in context the 10th of the current month if today is the 9th or earlier, or the 10th of the next month if today is the 11th or later. The month is added only when necessary, like "dia 10 de fevereiro" (just "dia 10" today would mean the 10th of January).

Regardless of whether it’s useful, middle-endianness itself is odd.

I am not persuaded that there is any hierarchy of importance here, let alone that there is a preferred one. Any wrong date is the wrong date.

Sure, Swedish. I prefer day first in English as well as I understand it it's accepted and commonly used (British English).

The languages I know how to say it in are all closely related to Swedish but they agree. And then Spanish uses day first too.

This is the case for most Slavic languages.